BALAI CHAND MANNA Vs. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be termed to be of very recent origin as the doctrine had a well-laid foundation long prior to the decision of the Hi-trees case, where however the concept was re-stated as a recognised doctrine of law. Reference in this context, may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Surajmull reported in 1880 ILR 5 Cal. 660 and the subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court 25 years later in the case of Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary of State reported in 1905 ILR 29 Bombay 580.

(2.) So far as Indian Courts are concerned, there seems to be a steady refinement on this branch of law, since the decision in the case of Anglo-Afghan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 718. In a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1070 SC 621 the Supreme Court observed:

(3.) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Sugar Mills (supra) was considered in the case of Jitram Sivkumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1980 0 SC 1285. Both the above-noted two decisions were subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujrat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd,. reported in AIR 1983 SC 848. In that decision the Supreme Court observed that the authority cannot act arbitrarily on its mere whim, ignore its promise on some undefined and undisclosed grounds of necessity or change the condition of the projects of a person who had acted upon such representation and put himself in a disadvantageous position. The Supreme Court observed that on this point both the decision, viz., M.P. Sugar Mill's case and Jitram's case concur. In that decision the Supreme Court pointed out that doctrine of promissory estoppel would certainly estop governmental agency from backing out its obligation arising from a solemn promise made to the petitioner.